The Difference between Lone Madmen and Crazed Radicals

The San Bernardino shootings were a terrorist act. No one in any position of authority will say that until the evidence is incontrovertible and overwhelming. At least Carly Fiorina had the courage - does it even have to be courage? - to say that all the evidence points to a terrorist attack.

They were in body armor with a small arsenal of IED's and ammo. They targeted known government buildings where Syed Farook worked as a well paid health inspector earning 53K a year. They knew that there was a staff Christmas party being held, because Syed had just walked out of the party a short while before the shooting. This was planned and they meant to kill as many as they could, and perhaps meant to target Christian holiday symbols.

Do we need a hand written letter in Arabic with an Al Qaeda or ISIL seal on it? Giving explicit instructions for the soon to be martyrs to shoot up a party? The evidence, instead, will be gathered and collated from online sources that do their best not to be gathered and collated. But it's what the authorities have to work with.

Maybe some other piece of evidence of contacts with terrorist groups like Al Qaeda or ISIL will show up. But not necessarily. Perhaps an online forum that claims to promote peaceful islamic worship will have to do.

You don't need specific instructions anymore. This is post-9/11. Any individual act of violent madness will do. No matter how cowardly, or how crazed. A general incitement sent out over the web is all they need. There is something disturbingly anarchic about these latest killings, even as they display some planning - as in San Bernardino - or a great deal of planning - as in Paris.

As Dems and Republicans, libertarians and liberals, progressives and conservatives, and others debate angrily over how to prevent these types of attacks, there is a group from which much more is needed: moderate Muslims.

They have to step up their denouncements of islamic terror after an event like this. But they also need to see the benefits of collaborating with the authorities before something like this happens. That might not be enough. In some cases it may never be enough. But a clear understanding that we are all victims of these type of shootings is essential.

There is a difference between lone madmen and people who are triggered into violent attacks by organized groups acting in the name of a crazed faith they alone claim to have the key to. You can never predict what the solitary madman will do with any degree of certainty. You can absolutely track and monitor what crazed radical groups are attempting to encourage in others. Especially with the help of moderates. There is a difference.

It only sounded like they were chanting ‘Allahu Ekber.’
The ‘selective grief’ is so unfair and frustrating.
‘The majority of fans’ weren’t doing it.
‘Countless vigils’ in other places.
‘Cultural’ differences - always my favorite, btw.

Damage control after the fact, is NOT the help moderate Muslims need to be providing, Warren.

Muslims saying “This isn’t us!” is like the kid saying “It wasn’t me!”. The kid knows exactly who is guilty. He knows exactly what the guilty party was going to do. He turned a blind eye to what was going to happen and when it was done, he says “It wasn’t me!”.

Sure, everyone is arguing about how to prevent these kinds of attacks. One side says stop them from coming here. Keep out those who went there. Investigate those already here.

Others say invite thousands of them over here, just because. Treat them all as innocent until one proves his guilt by killing others. Use our past as an excuse not to protect ourselves.

there is a group from which much more is needed: moderate Muslims.

You mean the guy saying, “It’s not me!”?

How is giving into their wants (refuge/immigration to the US) going to persuade them to police their own? What kind of motivation toward cleansing “Islam” is granting both innocent and guilty unfettered access into our midst?

We have no way of telling the difference between the innocent and the guilty unless the innocent exposes and eliminates the guilty on their own. Only then can the innocent prove their innocence to us. Once they have purged the guilty from their own community, only then should we invite them into ours.

Muslims in Europe are creating and enforcing no-go zones. We should be creating no-come zones. No one comes here until they’ve proven they have eliminated the guilty from their midst.

Unable to understand folks that approve of bringing middle eastern refugees into this country at this point in time. As usual, the major risk defers to the citizen/taxpayer. Why would one cling to the ‘huddled masses yearning to breath free’ mantra while putting at risk their kids lives re a soft target attack? Dunno, but I sure as hell ain’t one of them.

I am of the opinion that a major priority for the gov’t is to protect the citizenry. The US military says we are at war with ISIS.

As far as ‘vetting’ ME folks looking to enter the US, that’s about as useless as tits on a boar hog. The female California shooter came in on a ‘fiancee’ visa was ‘vetted’ but never asked a question about religion, Jihad and so on - - -

Sure, some vetting needs to take place to weed out the insane, intoxicated, strong body odors, etc. But, there are no questions that can be asked to ascertain whether a person is a Jihadi. With the millions traveling each day about the best one could do is obtain name, rank and S/N.

I believe the FBI and similar are overwhelmed and we are just getting into this US Jihadi movement. Not a bit suprising they weren’t aware of the Calif couple.

Common sense to me to provide for the care of feeding of refugees in the local area. Give the task to UN.

Best, and only real solution is to work toward the demise of ISIS/Al Queda and similar. And fast, before they gain further influence on the world scene.

Ideally, put together a coalition army from the surrounding countries. Failing that, use UN, NATO and local fighters where they can be found.

Post war, have the UN or some worldly body bring those middle eastern countries willing to participate together to vote on a realignment of Iraq and Syria. Allow them to start over again as secular tribal with the hopes they will eventually develop a civilized relationship with their neighboring countries. At some point they might want to form a mini EU type of gov’t.

kctim, I’ve seen a few folks of ME stock come forward and denounce ISIS. But, far to few, IMO. It may be that the folks are simply afraid for their security/safety if they are ‘seen’ as speaking out against the bad guys. Much like the folks on the block weren’t willing to rat out the mafia back in the day. I also think the problem is so ingrained in ME culture that many feel there is no solution and they are willing to sit on the sidelines, be entertained and hope someone comes and saves them.

Trump is doing the heavy lifting, taking all the heat for wanting to slow down ME travel to the US. But, I wish he would see the merit in holding refugees in their local areas for the interim. Would this not be a popular position with his base?

The people in Germany ignored the smell of roasting flesh. They, in turn, burnt up in the subway tunnels thinking their government was winning the war. They stood by on the sidelines while their country was reduced to ruin.

Why wasn’t FDR clamoring for more German refugees? Why didn’t the federal government open the borders to anyone who could get across? Could it be the people insisting on this insane policy is flat out wrong!

They must have a screw loose! More like it they don’t want to see their precious party on the losing side of things.

That’s what I don’t understand, WW. You would think the preservation of life and the common good would outweigh ideology.

Which is why I am a 3rd party fan. I would like to see Trump run 3rd party. Granted, he would lose badly but it might be the beginning of something for 2020.

IMO, there are so many folks in this country who have no knowledge of the country other than a good place to make a living but have the influence of the vote. I think a 3rd party would go a long way towards weakening that influence. Having extreme right or left presidents is detrimental to the country, IMO.

It’s really disheartening to see the GOP folks beating up on Trump for his position on immigration.

A poll indicated that 68% of the folks agree with Trump on the refugee issue but the GOP is hanging with their corporate masters.

One of the most shameful acts of the US at the beginning of WWII was refusing entry of German refugees who were mostly Jewish fleeing oppression within Germany. Turning away the MS St. Louis with 908 Jewish refugees from Florida ports in 1939 was not one of our finest hours. The ship’s German captain considered beaching the ship at one point to allow the refugees to escape but the Coast Guard prevented the ship from coming close to land. It is estimated that a quarter of those on board eventually died in concentration camps.

Shortly after the MS St. Louis was turned away, Congress rejected a proposal to allow 20,000 German Jewish children escape to safety in the US.

Having extreme right or left presidents is detrimental to the country, IMO.

I disagree wholeheartedly, Roy Ellis!

I think that having wishywashy centrists in office have created this divide that consumes the political environment.

Our country needs to make up it’s mind. It needs to go one way or another. Electing people who cater to the middle is what divides us. Electing people who cater to the middle create most of the problems we face today.

In my experience, it’s not that Muslims don’t, or won’t denounce the violence of groups like ISIS, it’s that the religion just hasn’t progressed enough for them to be able to do so without it seeming like they are also attacking Islam itself.

IMO, the religion is at a crossroad and it’s going to take a whole lot more than just denouncing only the most horrific violence after it has already occurred. They must accept that ALL abuse and murder in the name of Islam is wrong.

The problem goes WAY beyond ‘All Muslims are bad,’ and ‘Only a FEW Muslims are extremists.’ The religion itself has to adapt to the times.

“Would this not be a popular position with his base?”

I’m not a Trump supporter, but I don’t think his base would have a problem with that. There’s nothing wrong with requiring people to actually want to be an American, before letting them in.

From how they treat women, gays, non-muslims etc… in the name of Islam. Do we really need to get into how Muslim states treat people, Warren? Do you want to also pretend that this is representative of only a few Muslims that are in groups like the Taliban and IS?

I’m always open to learn, Warren, so tell me, how does a moderate Muslim speak out against a stoning in a Muslim state, without bringing Islam itself into it?

Just to remind you, we were not at war with Germany in 1939. We were well aware, though, of Nazi oppression of Jews in Germany. How do you justify turning a blind eye to 20,000 Jewish children attempting to escape? It was simply morally wrong!

The fact that for a comparison you have to bring up sects that are contained in parts of third world nations, pretty much explains it all, Warren.

Groups like the LRA haven’t really been blowing sh1t up and murdering innocent people around the globe on a daily basis, now have they. They also don’t have the numbers, state backing, funding, Christian leadership support etc… for global ‘jihad.’

Islam has over a billion followers and controls nations, some which are the richest in the entire world. Some that sponsor terrorism around the world.
Millions of Islams followers hold ‘extremist’ views and they are well funded and highly organized.

The difference is that one is an internal conflict with idiots running through their jungles, and the other is a global war being waged by a well oiled machine with the stated purpose of religious domination.

Rich, I guess, back then, we had a federal government that believed in obeying it’s laws! Imagine that!

President Franklin D. Roosevelt convened a conference in Evian, France, in July 1938. Despite the participation of delegates from 32 countries, including the United States, Great Britain, France, Canada, and Australia, only the Dominican Republic agreed to accept additional refugees

There was the choice, Rich. Instead of trying to break into the U.S. by beaching the St. Louis illegally, the captian could have sailed to the Dominican Republic, a few hundred miles away, and brought the propaganda episode to an end. It was his choice to break the law, his choice to return to Germany, his choice to ignore the many alternatives available to him.

1939 also marked the first time the United States filled its combined German-Austrian quota (which now included annexed Czechoslovakia).

The U.S. did all it could. You are manufacturing a shaming, pity party to promote your current propaganda ploy based on a fallacy.

By September 1939, approximately 282,000 Jews had left Germany and 117,000 from annexed Austria. Of these, some 95,000 emigrated to the United States, 60,000 to Palestine, 40,000 to Great Britain, and about 75,000 to Central and South America, with the largest numbers entering Argentina, Brazil, Chile, and Bolivia. More than 18,000 Jews from the German Reich were also able to find refuge in Shanghai, in Japanese-occupied China.

Again, the choice was demonstrated over and over again by German Jews going to different countries. The U.S. isn’t the only country responsible for babysitting every dislocated person in the world.

The only hero in the MS St. Louis saga was the German captain who would not abandon his passengers and refused to return to Germany until his passengers were granted safe haven. Unfortunately, a number of the European countries which eventually agreed to accept the refugees were overrun by the Nazis a year or two later and many of his passengers were exterminated in concentration camps.

After the war, he was awarded honors by both Germany and Israel for his efforts to save the refugees.

“The U.S. did all it could.”

Nonsense. Explain to me why the US could not accept 20,000 German Jewish children? There was an act in Congress to accept the children which was debated after Kristallnacht and Nazi imposition of extremely oppressive actions against the Jews in Germany. The danger to the children was clear. The danger to the US minimal. Yet, we would not make a legal exception for children. I will say it again: shameful.

There was no doubt that Congress could have passed the specific act filed in 1939 to admit the 20,000 children. Congress passed the restrictive immigration act of 1924. It could have amended it to afford refuge to those trying to escape Nazi Germany. I will say it once again: shameful.

“Our country needs to make up it’s mind. It needs to go one way or another. Electing people who cater to the middle is what divides us. Electing people who cater to the middle create most of the problems we face today.”

If this was a competition, and this was your entry, I would have to say that this is the single most ignorant post I have ever read on these pages.

Please, don’t write anything else on this subject, you’ll just make it worse.

I think if we had a 3rd party strong enough to have seeral sitting reps and senators this would dampen the extreme left/right positions and would provide a moderating factor that would lead to some legislation getting passed that serves the entire citizenry.

We really need a grass roots movement to start a 3rd party but were Trump to run as 3rd party that might lead to something in 2020.

As it is, big financials run the left and big corporation run the right. We need some political power serving the people and that can only come from a 3rd party.

The fact that for a comparison you have to bring up sects that are contained in parts of third world nations, pretty much explains it all, Warren.

Isn’t DAESH a group contained in parts of a pair of third world nations? It’s not like they are going to be capturing Baghdad or Damascus anytime soon. They are stuck with the territory they’ve got and have little opportunity for expansion.

Groups like the LRA haven’t really been blowing sh1t up and murdering innocent people around the globe on a daily basis, now have they.

Last time I checked, Africa was still a part of the globe. And it’s not just the LRA in Uganda; it’s the anti-Balaka militias in CAR and others. Most notable is the violence inflicted during the Presidency of Laurent Gbagbo upon his fellow Ivorians who happened to be Muslim, and this was done with widespread support from Christians in the US. Not to mention the efforts of US Christians to criminalize homosexuality in much of Africa.

Islam has over a billion followers and controls nations, some which are the richest in the entire world. Some that sponsor terrorism around the world.
Millions of Islams followers hold ‘extremist’ views and they are well funded and highly organized.

Christianity has over a billion follows and controls nations, some of which are the richest in the world. Some that sponsor terrorism (eg. anti-Communism groups in the developing world during the Cold War).
Sincerely, I doubt the number of Muslims with “extremist” views is much more than a million.

Millions of Islams followers hold ‘extremist’ views and they are well funded and highly organized.

Millions of Christians hold the “extremist” view that homosexuals aren’t entitled to the same rights as heterosexuals. Astonishingly, some Christians in the US have attempted to justify the violence of Robert Dear. Nevertheless, I seriously doubt that the number of people who would actually justify violent terrorism is more than a million people in either religion.